Talk:Double-deck elevator

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Double-deck elevator article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for merging with Elevator on 25 July 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Merge[edit]

Maybe this article should be put in the elevator article 203.129.57.172 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Double Decker Elevators are a really useful concept for carrying passengers from the Ground(0th) floor and the Parking (-1th) floor simultaneously during peak hours. Can this be added in the article ???

The John Hancock Tower in Boston also uses double-decker elevators.68.163.153.219 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Zybez 14:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the concept somewhat confusing in the details of how it is more efficient. The article suggests each deck could be assigned to odd or even floors - how then can I get from 2nd floor to 5th floor? Or what if I enter in the basement, therefore am on the bottom deck - would I have only a choice of either odd or even floors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.43.194 (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why the doors for both cars cannot be open simultaneously? RW7890 (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center[edit]

The WTC is listed in the article as having double-deck elevators, and this is not correct. The WTC did have an unusually complicated system of elevators, with some elevators serving as "expresses" and others in different shafts serving as "locals," roughly analogous to expresses and locals on the NY subway system. The article on the World Trade Center itself is correct, and matches what I remember from my own visit to the WTC, and matches what I've read elsewhere. Canadian2006 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since a month has passed and there have been no objections regarding the above comment, I have made the change. Canadian2006 (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]